Fox ‘Liberal’ Bob Beckel: No New U.S. Mosques Until Muslims ‘Denounce’ Kenya Attack

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I don't know who this guy is but is this another example of a liberal ignoring the Constitution?

Beckel is a former Democratic Party strategist and campaign guru. In this case, his proposal is unconstitutional (whattaya know, Arroyo is right for once), but that doesn't mean that we don't have a problem. As I stated above, if the witness testimony is accurate, the NAIT holds the deeds to most of the mosques in America. They have been proven to be a Muslim Brotherhood front, and have funnelled cash to terrorists. They should be investigated and prosecuted under RICO for their illegal activities, which are not protected by the First Amendment. I don't suppose that you have an issue with that, do you?

Originally Posted by Lanie

Your link didn't work.

It's a PDF file. Try right-clicking and opening it in another window.

Originally Posted by Lanie

If the potential mosque in question is owned or funded by those who are with the Muslim Brotherhood or another terrorist group, then it shouldn't be allowed to be built for national security reasons. If this is an issue of being concerned about the ideology, then we're playing a dangerous game by letting the government dictate it. How long will it take before the government decides that Christianity or another religion is too dangerous because of some aspects of the ideology? You might think it can't happen, but it can. We already have a problem with Christian businesses being told they need to cater to those in which their ideology doesn't agree. People who don't want to do so are being viewed by the government as "imposing their religion."

This is dangerous and we need to get the government out of the business of "not imposing religion" in regards to private affairs because I promise you they'll take it too far. There's a reason for the first amendment. They knew that people felt threatened by the ideology of others and would feel a need to "defend themselves."

If we're talking about national security (funding for a mosque or another religious institution being funded by terrorists), then fine. Let the government get involved. Otherwise, we need to get the government out.

In this case, it would be the government acting to protect "the free exercise thereof." Islamic law demands the subjugation of all other religions, and is therefore a violation of the rights of non-Muslims to freely practice their own faiths. Sharia is therefore incompatible with the US Constitution and any Muslim immigrants must be vetted for their willingness to live under our Constitutional order. The Tsarnaev terror clan was a clear example of someone taking the citizenship oath under false pretenses.

Originally Posted by Lanie

Besides, not allowing more mosques without a legal reason only encourages more extremism because we'll be seen as "at war with Islam."

The question is not whether we are at war with Islam, the question is whether Islam is at war with us. Unless mainstream Muslims denounce these actions and state, categorically, that those who murder non-combatants, even infidel non-combatants, are going to hell, we need to start with the assumption that the jihadis enjoy a large measure of support among Muslims, and that further immigration poses risks for the United States. Are the mosques dangerous, in and of themselves? Only if we take Recip Ergodan's word for it. Before being elected PM of Turkey, he was arrested for saying, "The minarets are our bayonets, the mosques are our barracks, the believers are our soldiers." If the PM of Turkey considers mosques a means of invasion, perhaps we should pay attention, especially since his government is building a $100 million "mega mosque" in Maryland.

Beckel is a former Democratic Party strategist and campaign guru. In this case, his proposal is unconstitutional (whattaya know, Arroyo is right for once), but that doesn't mean that we don't have a problem. As I stated above, if the witness testimony is accurate, the NAIT holds the deeds to most of the mosques in America. They have been proven to be a Muslim Brotherhood front, and have funnelled cash to terrorists. They should be investigated and prosecuted under RICO for their illegal activities, which are not protected by the First Amendment. I don't suppose that you have an issue with that, do you?

It's a PDF file. Try right-clicking and opening it in another window.

In this case, it would be the government acting to protect "the free exercise thereof." Islamic law demands the subjugation of all other religions, and is therefore a violation of the rights of non-Muslims to freely practice their own faiths. Sharia is therefore incompatible with the US Constitution and any Muslim immigrants must be vetted for their willingness to live under our Constitutional order. The Tsarnaev terror clan was a clear example of someone taking the citizenship oath under false pretenses.

The question is not whether we are at war with Islam, the question is whether Islam is at war with us. Unless mainstream Muslims denounce these actions and state, categorically, that those who murder non-combatants, even infidel non-combatants, are going to hell, we need to start with the assumption that the jihadis enjoy a large measure of support among Muslims, and that further immigration poses risks for the United States. Are the mosques dangerous, in and of themselves? Only if we take Recip Ergodan's word for it. Before being elected PM of Turkey, he was arrested for saying, "The minarets are our bayonets, the mosques are our barracks, the believers are our soldiers." If the PM of Turkey considers mosques a means of invasion, perhaps we should pay attention, especially since his government is building a $100 million "mega mosque" in Maryland.

Okay, from what I understand mainstream Muslims do condenmn extremism. We just discussed how these extremists go after Mosques in other countries in another thread. In the case of Tsarnaev, their own mosque criticized their behavior before they attacked. The older one considered the congregants of mosque to be too moderate.

So, it sounds like there are plenty who criticize extremism. I think those extremists know who is who better than we do.

What would it take to meet your criteria of the moderates condemning the radicalism? They're speaking to the congregants, and that's more important than the news.

I'm also thinking that since radicals are threatening to murder them for speaking out, the last thing they need is for the "moderate" world to turn against them by not allowing them freedom of religion.

Also, these things tend to go underground. Would you like that to happen?

I don't know who this guy is but is this another example of a liberal ignoring the Constitution?

Surely you're kidding. The loud mouth was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale in 1984 and worked on Robert Kennedy's campaign in 1968. He had a long and dubious lib background way before becoming one of the libs on Fox (to keep it fair and balanced).

‎" To the world you are just one more person, but to a rescued pet, you are the world."

I'm not so sure that what Beckel is proposing is actually unconstitutional.

Here's the quote again:

They are not the religion of peace,” agreed Beckel. “Listen, if people who are supposedly peaceful, you moderate Muslims out there. Now listen, I know I have been on this thing for a long time, but the time has come for you stand up and say something.”

He continued, “And I will repeat what I said before: No Muslim students coming here with visas. No more mosques being built here until you stand up and denounce what’s happened in the name of your prophet. It is not what your prophet meant as soon as I know. I don’t know his mother’s name and I don’t care. The point is, that the time has come for Muslims in this country and other people in the world to stand up and be counted, and if you can’t, you’re cowards.”

Nowhere in there does Beckel say that Muslims can't worship. He says no more students coming here with visas. Last time I checked, visas can be withheld from applicants. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

Regarding the construction of mosques, there's nothing unconstitutional about creating zoning laws that forbid such things. Buildings are buildings. Nothing religious about buildings.

Nope, if the muzzies can't denounce terror when it's as plain as the burka on her face, then taking some action to keep the bastards out and keeping them from building their own centers of terror in our own country could certainly be done without trampling on their "rights."

Surely you're kidding. The loud mouth was the campaign manager for Walter Mondale in 1984 and worked on Robert Kennedy's campaign in 1968. He had a long and dubious lib background way before becoming one of the libs on Fox (to keep it fair and balanced).

I was on Ft Campbell in '84 and all I really thought about was going to Nashville so I could cruise Vanderbilt babes so I really wasn't following the inner workings of political campaigns at the time. In '68, I think I was in rural Oklahoma trying to find snakes and frogs.

I'm not so sure that what Beckel is proposing is actually unconstitutional.

Here's the quote again:

Nowhere in there does Beckel say that Muslims can't worship. He says no more students coming here with visas. Last time I checked, visas can be withheld from applicants. Nothing unconstitutional about that.

Regarding the construction of mosques, there's nothing unconstitutional about creating zoning laws that forbid such things. Buildings are buildings. Nothing religious about buildings.

Nope, if the muzzies can't denounce terror when it's as plain as the burka on her face, then taking some action to keep the bastards out and keeping them from building their own centers of terror in our own country could certainly be done without trampling on their "rights."

I think the 14th may have something to say about that. Unless you are suggesting that no houses of worship, regardless of religion, be allowed to build until we clear up this whole Muslim-voicing-outrage thing.

I think the 14th may have something to say about that. Unless you are suggesting that no houses of worship, regardless of religion, be allowed to build until we clear up this whole Muslim-voicing-outrage thing.

Upthread, I think somebody said something about the 1st Amendment, which is pretty much what I based my comment on.

But more specifically, are you suggesting that it's impossible to stop an alleged house of worship from being built based on zoning laws? Or any other reason?

Granted, the ACLU would be all over that like stink on shit, but hey, all it takes is a city council or three with balls.